appwrite_activate_deployment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it states the end state (active version), it omits critical behavioral details: what happens to the previously active deployment (deactivation? replacement?), whether this is reversible, side effects on function execution, or any safety warnings about changing production traffic.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Efficient single-sentence structure with action verb front-loaded. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise that doesn't aid agent understanding, but doesn't significantly clutter the definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a state-mutation operation (changing active deployment) with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of the 'site' parameter, return values, lifecycle implications (rollback capability), and safety considerations for a production-critical operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only implicitly references 'deployment' and 'function' in the prose, leaving 'site' completely unexplained (unclear if this is a site ID, endpoint, or region). No format constraints or semantics are provided for any parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Activate') and resource ('deployment'), with the parenthetical clarifying the specific outcome ('set as the active version for the function'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like `appwrite_get_active_deployment` (read) vs this tool (write), or clarify when to activate vs create a new deployment.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `appwrite_create_deployment` or `appwrite_update_function`), nor any mention of prerequisites like whether the deployment must already exist or if this affects live traffic immediately.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.